Test case for VED rates
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MA Crown Court has rejected an appeal by Ray Steele Haulage, of Barrow in Furness against the company's conviction for using a vehicle at the wrong rate of duty. But the case is expected to go on to the High Court.
The company appealed to Carlisle Crown Court against its conviction on four offences of using a three-axled tractive unit, taxed at the concessionary rate for 3+3 artics, with a twin-axled trailer.
For Steele, Jonathan Lawton said the issue was whether a higher rate of duty became payable once a loaded trailer with two axles was attached to the tractor unit even though the train weight was deliberately kept below 28 tonnes: at this weight the vehicle excise duty would have been one third of the dis cretionary rate actually paid. Was it the weight at which the outfit actually ran, or the DOT plate which should be looked at?
Lawton pointed out that Wilkinson on Road Traffic stated that no offence was committed.
Adrian Curran, for the prosecution, argued that it was the plated weight rather than the plateable weight that governed the amount due. If it was the latter the law would be impossible to enforce.
Dismissing the appeal against conviction in the first case, but substituting a conditional discharge for the fine of £750 imposed by Kendal magistrates, Judge Mahon described the regulations governing the taxation of HGV vehicles as a "labyrinthine maze".
Rejecting the prosecution's contention about the unenforceability of considering the weight at which a vehicle was operating, Judge Mahon pointed out that it was common practice to weigh vehicles in overloading cases. He said that this would be no more of a problem. He adjourned consideration of the other three appeals to give the defence time to consider an appeal to the Divisional Court.